Wrecked cars clutter Cobo car park quite legally, says the man who owns it. Thomas Holroyd says the dispute will end only when Sandpiper resumes rent negotiations, something it will not do until Mr Holroyd has proved to its advocates that he does own the land. (Picture by Peter Frankland, 0805670)
A MYSTERY man who claims to own Cobo car park has finally spoken out about the dispute over the land – ending 18 months of silence.
Sark resident Thomas Holroyd, 38, speaking exclusively to the Guernsey Press, said he had bought Fief Les Carterets, which he says includes the car park, from his mother at the end of 2006 for £50,000.
The long-running dispute between Mr Holroyd and Sandpiper, which owns the Checkers Xpress store that relies on the car park, started when he contacted the company at the beginning of 2007 asking it to sign a new agreement for use of the land because the previous one was due to expire.
That agreement had been signed in 1987 by the previous seigneurs of the fief, the parish and surrounding businesses, giving permission for them to use the car park in exchange for paying for its upkeep. Mr Holroyd said he no longer felt that agreement to be fair or appropriate.
‘My mother was also paying insurance for the land and that did not seem right to me,’ he said.
‘So I spoke to the constables about it and approached Sandpiper to ask them to sign an agreement, pay rent and cover the insurance. In return for that, AW Holdings [Mr Holroyd’s company] would pay for the upkeep and re-tarmacing.’
Mr Holroyd, who declined to be photographed, said he was not prepared, at this stage, to say how much rent he had asked for, but Sandpiper CEO Tony O’Neill said it was £120,000 per year.
‘I went to a meeting with Sandpiper and brought with me evidence that supported my claim that I own the land,’ Mr Holroyd said. ‘They had done no research at all. I said I would not release my documents but would be happy to sit down with their advocate and go through them. That was accepted but never happened. I chased Sandpiper, but they never organised it. So I sent Sandpiper a new agreement prior to the old one expiring.’
Developments after that meeting included Mr Holroyd placing boulders around the car park to prevent the public using it, drivers being angered that their cars had been moved from the car park using their vehicles to block the entrance and about 20 cars being dumped on the site to take up spaces.
Mr Holroyd said the only way to end the dispute was for Sandpiper to resume negotiations – which it has said would not happen until its advocates had seen proof that he did own the land.
Dispute in detail Pages 4 & 5
Article posted on 13th July, 2009 - 2.30pm
61 Article Comments
At last, a little more clarity on the issue.
If Tony O’Neill is being accurate, £120k pa rent for a car park seems extortionate to me.
Whilst I sympathise with Mr Holroyd’s original position, if he is exploiting the situation and ruining the ambience of Cobo in the process then he quickly loses my sympathy.
Report abuse
“IF he is exploiting the situation”? He has lost ALL sympathy by his childish tactic of ‘if I can’t have my money you can’t have the car park’. The place looks like a dump – the Constables should clear the car wrecks and fine the last owners of record.
Report abuse
A Sark resident….. How often would that be then Mr Holroyd? Not seen you around for a while.
Report abuse
Well its simple
if the guy owns it then he has the right to say that business’s that are using it and gaining financial should pay..
as to the reported rent well thats a matter for negotiation one would think that without the parking there all the business’s would loose a great deal of value and customers
its not the car park “land owners responsibility to provide Parking”
and whilst i sympathize with the people who live there and the customers who use it lets get real
if you owned land and someone kept parking on it and making money out of your land what would you do………
as to the issue suuronding abandon cars etc lets hope that these can be removed and the area made safer
ultimatley if the area was closed off and all cars removed with no parking at all then at least the people who live there would have the situation resolved.
Report abuse
Bob you are quite wrong to suggest that to “get real” we should acknowledge that £120k pa as rent for that car park is in any way reasonable even out of the current financial climate. I feel certain no business in their right mind would hesitate to pay a reasonable level of rent but you also ignore the fact that the ownership is also very much still in question. Let’s get real on that one, if you were being asked to pay rent to an individual for something upon which there were very real doubts that they even owned the land in the first place what would you do……….?
The man clearly has an axe to grind with Sandpiper and thinks that his alleged position of “power” enables him to behave in a thoroughly childish, petty and, frankly, pathetic manner. If he engaged half the effort involved in arranging for wrecked cars to be placed there into sorting the matter out in a grown up and business like manner I am sure things would have been resolved a long time ago. Sadly it seems quite clear that this is unlikely to happen until such time as this individual is proven NOT to have any right to the land as it appears to have become his reason for living – we should pity the poor soul really.
Report abuse
well said Patsy.
Mr Holroyd should be ashamed of the way in which he is conducting himself – and presumably he knows that as he prefers not to be photographed.
Report abuse
The other (above) Bob seems to over-simplify, pehaps delibeately.
I would wish, on behalf of myself and many other Bobs to wholly disassociate myself from his comments.
The land has been a public amenity for decades, and should remain so. What’s he going to claim next? The Beach? The road?
I do not believe TH is a Sark resident, either.
Report abuse
‘My mother was also paying insurance for the land and that did not seem right to me,’ he said.
How much, exactly, does it cost to ‘insure land’? And against what? Fire? Theft? Damage?
Report abuse
Seems to me that Sandpiper, or its affiliates, have had a easy time over the last 20 years, and now that the owner of the land actually wants a return on his investment, they don’t like that much do they?
Whether the rent is £1 p.a or £120k p.a. matters not a jot. It is for Mr Holroyd and Sandpiper to come to a mutual agreement. I wonder how many loyal Guernsey subjects would allow their land to be used by a large company for a peppercorn rent?
Report abuse
Mr Holroyd, if right is on your side take the matter to court and sue Sandpiper for rent. If you own the land you will get judgment with costs simples really. Could you please explain what would be the problem with doing this.
Report abuse
Whilst I do not know the man I do know someone who does. It is the person stated above – he currently lives in Guernsey so I have no idea how long ago exactly he apparently lived in Sark!
There is dispute over the documents he holds. You are completely right Patsy – Sandpiper I should imagine will not pay any money to a guy who cannot prove he legally owns the land. When this came out last year (if you re-call when he used boulders to block the entrances) Sandpiper did try to negotiate with him but he wouldn’t enter into negotiations. Surely there must be some clause protecting local businesses from dorment land owners (as apparently his mother owned the property for years and did nothing with it).
This guy is a typical old Guern (sorry to use the term) stubborn as they come – but being childish to boot. If he legally owns the land why doesn’t he just go through the courts and demand payment? You have to wonder when they start using “abandoned car” technique…
There is a facebook group demanding removal of the cars from the area. Perhaps if enough people join something will be done.
Report abuse
The fly in the ointment appears to be Sandpiper. I always remember the area to be public. What about the other businesses at Cobo, or people just wanting to visit the beach? I think Mr H is just trying to exploit Sandpiper.
Take them out of the equation completely and deal with it as Mr H vs Guernsey public.
Reading Advocate Langlois’ comments the chap doesn’t appear to actually own the land. I agree with Patsy – the man is pathetic. You don’t resolve such issues in a mature way by dumping old cars there.
I repeat – remove Sandpiper from the equation, they are the problem in reality because they want the parking for their customers but don’t want to pay the rent – and he wants to make money from them. As far as I am concerned it is public land and you park there to go to Checkers, the chippy, the stores, the beach or whatever. If there is not enough room for Checkers customers, tough – I believe it is public land. They never had any claim over the parking before – it was just a communal space.
States – Constables – sort it – compulsorily purchase for the public interest – although I don’t think you have to purchase anything because Mr H doesn’t actually own it!?
Report abuse
when I got home last night I read yesterday’s press and the full double page spread on this issue. I am usually critical of the GP’s approach of easy journalism but I would like to give credit where it is due for going out there and finding the key people to speak to and getting what appeared to be all perspectives on the issue.
As a result of that, any sympathy I had for Mr Holroyd has completely gone. His basis for claiming that he owns the land appears to be a mistaken belief that land ownership in Guernsey is still operated on a feudal system, backed up by a claim that because Sandpiper moved some boulders that they have agreed to pay him £120k pa rent (which, strangely, he is not trying to enforce).
The guy has no social conscience or consideration for this island.
It appears that 36 Deputies have written to the Law Officers urging them to arrange a legal determination of the ownership issue by the Court. Amen to that.
Report abuse
Mr Holroyd has done himself no favours here and the impression to our visitors is that of an abandoned and neglected island. It also demonstrates an enormous disrespect to the people of the parish and Guernsey. I wouldn’t think for one moment that his neighbours in St Peter Port would like to be treated the same.
Report abuse
These cars that have been dumped are not just unsightly but pose a safety and enviromental threat.
It has come to a time when the States should invoke emergency powers on the grounds of safety and wellbeing to the public and expedite the immediate removal the scrap vehicles.
Report abuse
No “typical old Guern” would want to see the sorry state of the car park at present. Mr Holroyd is about as close to being a Guernseyman as he is a “Sark Resident”. Agree re emergency measures required as we won’t even go near the place with our toddler until the car park has been put back to its former state. His current stance is damaging all of the small business at Cobo – not just Sandpiper>
Report abuse
If he is so sure that he owns the land why doesn’t he make it terre a lamende ( excuse spelling )
Instead of abandoned cars he could erect a couple of neat little signs and rake in as many fifty quids as his fingers could grasp each day
Report abuse
Ray, good point. Just like all the Checkers car parks are………………. they protect their land against unauthorised use.
Report abuse
Mr Holroyd should be ashamed of himself holding the people of Guernsey to ransome,he is just another non local hoping to fleece us for a fast buck.
Please the states of Guernsey use the powers we have given you and clear the eye sore away.
Report abuse
No “typical old Guern”, this lad.
He’s a Yorkshireman, (I think), in his thirties.
He claims his company owns a fief. As Langlois rightly points out, you cannot transfer land without a conveyance, and that conveyance has to go through the court. If it has, he will have documentary proof of ownership – it will be registered at the cadastre.
He has presumably only bought whatever was sold to his mother. He may have some rights over the land, but that isn’t ownership. I think that rights of way, usufructs and easements all have to be registered anyway, so even rights over land have to have a deed of some form, and are therefore evidenced. I would have doubts as to whether his or any other company CAN hold a seigneur’s rights, as surely a seigneur is a personal title.
Ray – he can’t do that, because he’d have to PROVE ownership!
Compulsory purchase it for a pound; proceeds held in trust by public trustee, until ownership proven beyond doubt. Then hand the pound over to the winner.
Report abuse
Lynnie
It probably is unfair to refer to Mr Holroyd as a typical old Guern. You surely can’t have that much against typical old Guerns.
His actions are a terrible shame for Cobo. Not sure what Mr Holroyd hopes to gain from his feudal selfish stance.
Report abuse
I put it to Mr Holroyd that whilst he may be a ‘Sark resident’ in some kind of technical sense, his feet remain firmly planted on the island of Guernsey for the most part, as I see him most days of the week!
Report abuse
I have known Mr Holroyd for some 10 years and his stance on this matter is, sadly, no surprise. I have no doubt that he will fight this to the bitter end. I just pray he doesn’t win. This is another example of somebody with too much money coming to the island and thinking they can throw their weight around willy-nilly without so much as a nod to Guernsey Law or a tipping of their hat to common civility.
Report abuse
‘Sark Resident’??? What a joke! I see Holroyd several mornings a week, and have been doing so for the last couple of years. I hope he ends up with egg all over his face – the guy is totally out of touch with both law and morality.
And anyway, what’s with the States allowing him to pile up scrap metal on that site (if it is his site, which it probably isn’t)? I have no doubt that if I set up a scrap metal yard in my back lawn, I’d be sued by the States under some kind of misuse of land law, as poor and innocent old John Norman did last week for trying to run his meagre skip business in somebody’s yard, so how come Holroyd gets away with it?
Just goes to show, as ever, that it’s not what you know, but who you know on this island.
Report abuse
When I’m rich from selling my Bernard Flouquet Joke Book and T Shirts, I’m going to act just like this guy.
What a hero!
Report abuse
Have to say – judging from the press and your comments – he is doing no good for Guernsey’s image at all. Its such a shame that one person can do so much damage for a whole community – how on earth can this guy sleep at night ?
As Bridge said – anyone else would’ve been pulled up a long time ago – so why has he been allowed to get away with this ?
Report abuse
Bridge
I Agree with what You say about Mr Norman. I don`t think he was running his business from there as such. It was more that instead of just dumping everything in one place (which he will now have to do) he was actually trying to seperate the waste as much as he could, and he gets punished because some whinners complained.
So there we have it, some skip drivers have been trying for years to get the states to give them somewhere to seperate their waste.
But then they will be needing it to feed flouquet`s mass burn incinerator. You couldn`t make it up.
Report abuse
Finally. Some justice.
For too long there’s been people owning their own land then charging people to park on it. Like my brother’s landlord who insists on an entirely unreasonable £67 a month for a car parking space. HOW DARE he try and turn a profit from a small piece of land he owns.
This sort of behaviour makes me sick. As a Guern, I don’t only want something for nothing… I want EVERYthing for nothing. So hopefully precedent will be set here. No more will we have to pay to use land that belongs to someone else.
Until that day, I urge the good people of Guernsey to do what I do when I take the Bobmobile down to Cobo. Simply park in the driveway of one of the neighbouring houses. Sure, it’s owned by someone else, and I don’t have their permission, but, hey, there’s no difference between that and getting indignant about using Holroyd’s land.
Report abuse
Cobo Lover
Completely agree with you. Wouldn’t want the term “Guern” tarnished with the likes of Mr Holroyd. Whilst being stubborn is a Guernsey virtue – I don’t think we can stretch the term to include pig headedness and childish tatics.
What’s in todays press should have been done months ago. If he does win ownership and right to demand rent on the land then you have to wonder what kind of message that is giving out.
Report abuse
In my opinion: –
Greed and a total lack of business accumen and professionalism see to have taken over this simple problem.
Rent: easily agreed by simple negotiation with figures based on similar rented properties in the area (there must be other carparks or pieces of land around Guernsey being rented for a similar commercial use – how much is teh rent there?).
Insurance: Landowners shoud always have insurance, but the Leaseholder/Licencee should take out insurance in their own name too – such insurance would be against being sued for death, injury, damage etc.
Proof of Ownership: If solid proof of ownership cannot be established, the property should revert to the Crown.
Report abuse
Student Bob – nice attempt at irony but you’ve missed the point.
IF Mr Holroyd owned the land and was blocking it off to prevent it being used for parking until a market reasonable rent was agreed, few would object.
However, that is not the situation. Mr Holroyd has resorted to juvenile tactics which damage the amenity of the area. He is trying to force the businesses to accept an unreasonable rent by making the area unattractive. This is not just a piece of land, it is a piece of land in a prime tourist area and the eyesore is damaging the island, not just the businesses or the local residents.
That would be bad enough, except that it appears that his claims to own the land are distinctly dubious.
There is plenty to get indignant about.
Report abuse
Forgive me for asking such as silly question..
But if MH does not own the land, then exactly who does??
If he cannot prove ownership, then doesnt it mean his mother still owns the land (assuming that the story of him buying it from her is true)?
At which point we have to say that Sandpiper, the people of Guernsey and the other local shops have been getting a pretty good deal out of his mother for this land.
I’d also like to wager that in todays litigious society, if someone fell and broke their ankle on the car park, they would be straight down to “claims r us” suing the owner for all they had, so realistically this land holds genuine cost, so should be repaid with genuine income.
However to balance that, I cant help but think that all perspective on this (what should be a relatively straightforward) matter has been lost due to Holroyd’s posturing.
Report abuse
No TL, the point I missed was yours.
My point remains that Holroyd presumably owns the land and at present he is withholding service until he is paid for it. And rightly so. Wouldn’t you do the same?? Consider this…. If you park on his land and injure yourself today, you’d be suing him. Perhaps he’s got insurance, but if not, at least with the land unavailable for use, he can claim that you were trespassing and it’s not his problem.
Do you know for a fact that Mr H doesn’t own the land? I think it looks awfully suspicious that no official action has been taken and the States looks as impotent as ever. Where are the ‘Police Aware’ notices warning that the cars will be removed? Why haven’t States Works removed the burnt out wrecks? Besides, you might recall that all this started when Mr H blockaded the entrance to the car park with boulders to stop use. The boulders were removed somehow and now he’s simply filled the spaces. It’s what I’d have done too. Juvenile? Possibly.
And please do try and remember that your indignance is a product of what the GP has fed you. If this had been reported as one man’s crusade against the evil might of the Sandpiper Group, you’d all be heading towards their offices with your pitchforks and burning staves.
Report abuse
The Man – hardly a great deal. It’s no different to any other piece of common land in the island. No different to any of the coastal car parks, town disc zones, roads and other public spaces we take for granted.
His mother hasn’t ever owned the land either, as she didn’t buy the land from the previous holders of the Fief, according to Langlois; and he makes more sense on the subject than most.
Report abuse
Student Bob – no, I am perfectly able to distil information and decide whether it stacks up or not. Your position assumes that he owns the land. However, the basis of his argument for claiming that (in his own words, assuming they are accurately quoted by the GP) is that he has bought a feudal title from his mother. Nothing about having a conveyance for the land or an act of court – which is the only way in which land can change hands on this island.
He then says that the sale contract between his mother and him transferred to him “such title as the seller may have…”. This is the usual language used in sale contracts by administrators when they do not want to promise that they own anything at all. In other words, the buyer is taking the risk that they are paying for thin air.
My understanding of the property laws of this island lead me to conclude that the evidence of ownership put forward by Mr Holroyd does not show that he owns anything other than a seigneurial title.
As for why the States have not acted, I could suggest ineptitude, apathy, unwillingness to take a decision… Although hopefully that is coming to an end.
Where things seem to have gone really wrong is when the past Constables of Castel entered into a contract with the previous seigneur, which suggested that he did have land rights. Maybe that was equally mistaken, or maybe that seigneur owned the land and still does.
One thing is for sure, Mr Holroyd has had his opportunity to show his position and yet the evidence he has produced is meaningless.
Report abuse
TL – so are you saying that all of the legal documents posted on http://www.cobocarpark.com/ are fakes?
Report abuse
none of those documents shows a transfer of land to AW Holdings or Mr Holroyd
If he had a legal transfer, he would list it there. He hasn’t, so he doesn’t have one.
Report abuse
Of course, but they also quite clearly state that the land is not ‘common’ either.
Report abuse
As Mrs P points out the documents make clear the land does ot belong to the public.
The documents, including the heading of Carey Langlois circa 1987 seem authentic even to the list of partners.
Other letters from IDC, Board of Administration and the Parish are all authentic.
Mr Holroyd might or might not be the owner of the land but it matters not, as clearly some individual or others are the owners.
Those distressed about the abandoned cars should read the letter containing advise about removal of vehicles.
If Deputy Paint had been made aware by the Parish of this letter and its advice he might well have decided not to take the action he dis a few months back.
Report abuse
TL – Do remember that no-one else has proved that Holroyd DOESN’T own the land either.
So, seeing as no public body has done anything at all (seriously, I mean the Bobmobile gets ‘Police Aware’ notices almost daily…. (it’s not the greatest car in the world….)). One should distill this information and decide that it stacks up against the land being publicly owned.
Report abuse
the point we were discussing was whether Mr Holroyd’s actions were defensible. His own evidence does not support his claim that he owns the land – therefore undermining any right to act in the way in which he is acting.
That is a separate issue from the question of who else may own the land (be it private or Crown land). If it was owned by the seigneur back in the 1700s but then was never transfered by conveyance, it is possible that the land reverted to the Crown by bona vacantia. Or it may be that someone does have a right of ownership and does not know about it.
But it is almost certain that Mr Holroyd does not own the land because he cannot point to any document which says that he does.
Report abuse
I may be wrong , but surely it is possible to change the effective ownership of land without a conveyance ? If property is owned by a company and the company changes hands then so effectively has the land, but without a conveyance.
If the title of seigneur carries with it property rights are these not also transferred with the title even without a specific conveyance for the property ?
The important missing link in all this would be anything showing that the land at one point in the past was owned by the seigneur….. And if Mr Holroyd had that you’d think he’d have produced it by now …..
Report abuse
Toby. If a company changes hands that does not change the ownership of the assets of the company, they are still owned by the company itself.
The title of seigneur is a personal feudal title separate from actual land ownership. In the olden days an inheritor of the title may well have inherited all land associated with it (I do not know). However, we have moved on from a feudal society and adopted a court based system of land transfers. That overrode any previous system for transferring land. Now, land can only be transferred by conveyance, which must be registered in court, or by an act of court. That even applies to land passing by inheritance.
Report abuse
Quite right TL, we were discussing whether Mr H’s actions were justifiable.
So, if I park my car in your driveway every day without your permission, what would you do?? You sure you wouldn’t fit a gate, or block the driveway with boulders or something… or maybe park your own car in such a way as to prevent me from using your driveway? Or, as you find Mr H’s actions so reprehensible, would you be okay with me parking my car on your property?
(p.s. I’ll continue to believe that Mr H does own the land until such time as someone can prove that he doesn’t. We know it to be owned privately, and I don’t own it, so Mr H’s claim is looking better already!)
Report abuse
Toby
You ask baout the “important missing link in all this would be anything showing that the land at one point in the past was owned by the seigneur…..”
If you read the correspondence at the web site indicted by Mrs P earlier in this thread, you will see numerous references to the land being owned by the seigneur.
Worth reading as they will lead to a more informed view.
Shame the Guernsey Press couldn’t be bothered to find the truth. or would that spoil a good story?
Report abuse
Student Bob – how do we know the land is owned privately? I think that is the very issue at stake in all of this – no-one knows who actually holds title to the land.
I’m with TL – it seems clear to me (and most normal people) that rather than ask and/or answer the pertinent questions, all people involved are doing their best to sidestep and/or deflect. If it was me, I’d say “here’s the title to the land, it’s mine, now pay up”. Some kind of arbitrator needs to step in and, since they’re all behaving like children, bash their heads together and tell them to behave. If TH has the appropriate rights to the land then he can charge whatever he wants for it. If no-one is willing to pay it, then so be it.
(Also, TL said bona.)
In any event, I’m shocked that there’s no suitable public ordinance that dictates someone can’t have rusting vehicles on their land – in the same way that we all have to cut our hedges twice a year, or obtain planning permission to build something. I can think of numerous other places on the Island where there are heaps of rusting vehicles and are undoubtedly posing an environmental hazard.
Report abuse
Yeah, Pah, did you actually bother reading any of the other posts? Try the enchanting Mrs P’s of 15 July at 4:02pm or just try http://www.cobocarpark.com
Report abuse
I have loved reading this argument and wholly agree with most,its out of hand by long now, and yes mr. H is what you all say, if he is from yorkshire then b- off back, along with other none locals who try to change things here. However,i also dont see the point in all the comments unless each and every states member takes things into action, yes they have the powers to do this and that but they dont usually. Blame them for this row. Where are their public comments? Which deputies have taken this onboard, all very well demanding the law officers but that will take forever to resolve, if ever! Like the above said, get the cars removed, reg. mumbers are still on them?? If they cant prove ownership of the land then the States are doing nothing wrong by removing cars from it. like with the boats at Rousse, put a cross on then and then dump them. The States have already decided on the incinorator which is why practucaly none of them turned up to the meeting at St.Sampsons High this week which explained the right solution. Its not just Guernsey problems that need sorting out, its our government and the so called “powers” they abuse or not even use.
Report abuse
I think the states should dig a huge hole on the land. Who’d own it then? Can you own a hole? I blame the Firefighters.
Report abuse
Sarah:
Your point may have been valid, but you come across as being so ‘yocal’: “if he is from yorkshire then b- off back, along with other none locals who try to change things here”.
It’s a disease in Guernsey that so many ‘locals’ (by the way there are almost no true locals left) ignore the opinions of foreigners just because they are foreign. Could it be, if we listened, a non local might even dare to have a good idea? The sad reality is that even if they did we’d probably cut our noses off rather than admit it..
Report abuse
Well according to the legal papers on http://WWW.COBOCARPARK.COM The legal owner appears to be the seigneur.Would the real seigneur hold their hands up,with legal paperwork to prove it,this whole issue is starting to get boring.
Report abuse
me
I think you will find it is a “disease” in most countries and in this case Sarah is right to tell him to clear off as he has no respect by letting that eyesore go on. And i think most non local residents would agree.
Report abuse
Back in the 1990s, the Parish Constables dealt with the land as any evidence as to the ownership had been lost over time.
At that time, it was in a poor state, so the Constables negotiated with the States and the then Public Thoroughfares Committee resurfaced the car park and the Traffic Committee planned and painted the lines. It also installed the cast iron bollards to stop people driving on or off over the kerbs.
All that work was done at public expense because it was for the benefit of everyone, including ALL the businesses in the area, none of whom including Le Riche, paid anything towards the work.
Report abuse
There seems to be only one reference to ownership in Holroyd’s paperwork that was agreed by more than one or two parties – that is the agreement between a previous Dame and Seigneur, the Castel Constables and various businesses in the area.
In that document, the land was indeed regarded as common land. As that agreement was signed by the then fiefholders, they obviously believed as did everybody else that the land was common land. (see “whereas (3)” in the first document).
The common land forms part of the Fief de Carteret. This in all probability refers not to ownership, but to geography. The land forms part of Guernsey, part of the parish of Castel, and a part of the Fief de Carteret. My property forms part of a Fief, too – yet I own it without being the Seigneur. My deeds refer to the Fief presumably in order to identify the recipient of the various feudal dues which I don’t have to pay.
I wonder as to the legality of the earlier agreement, as the land was acknowledged to be common land, how could anyone be granted “exclusive” rights of this nature?
All the rest of the documentation is peppered with unilateral (and rather convenient for the task then in hand – i.e. we need a signature from somebody to get XYZ done) references to the Seigneur as “owner”. Certainly an Advocate might take the view that the nearest equivalent to an owner (for the purposes of obtaining an assent) may be the Seigneur. There is also a denial from a states department that they have any rights of enforcement under a particular law, as the land wasn’t states land. Well that doesn’t make the land Tom’s either.
This is all fascinating and wholly inconclusive. The earlier agreement was based on the accepted historic position as it stood at the time, and may have been a compromise (betwen personal views) even then in order to get the area tidied up.
Report abuse
Guern
If you at the correspondence you would have seen The Castel Constables, in a letter to Mrs. Bean regarding the removal of cars stated; “We have consulted the Law Officers and need your permission to remove these and any subsequent cars/refuse abandoned in the future, subject to the necessary legal publications in the Guernsey Press.” 20th April, 2000.
Perhaps the Parish Constables had rediscovered during 2000 the facts about the ownership of the land?
Others such as Carey Langlois, IDC, Board of Administration all acceppted the ownership of land by Mrs Bean and others. It’s all there in the correspondence.
Report abuse
Bob – absolutely right.
Stephen – sorry, I disagree. See Bob’s analysis of why this does not amount to an acceptance of ownership of the land by Mrs Bean (or even if that was the view at the time, how that does not make it the true legal position)
Report abuse
TL
Perhaps the phrase “control the use of” is more appropriate than “own”.
But then the advocates, crown officers, IDC etc were all wrong in assuming Mrs Bean and others controlled and still control, the use of the land, despite them being aware of all the facts, including the reference to common land.
Report abuse
Stephen – maybe, but as Bob points out, consent is often obtained “just in case” because it is easier to get the consent than to satisfy oneself absolutely that the consent is not required. They may have been equally unsure back then.
while the seigneur was friendly, there would have been no problem getting consent just to be on the safe side. Now that the seigneur is less than friendly, there is reason to spend time checking whether it was ever required at all. The obtaining of previous consent is not conclusive.
Report abuse
I agree with TL.
However, if the out come is that the land is ‘Sates’ owned I bet I know who will end up with the bill to dispose of the cars!
Report abuse
Disgusted of Albecq
Don’t worry we taxpayers seemed to have paid for removals in or around April 2000 when the Constables of the castel sought permission of Mrs Bean to remove the dumped cars.
Report abuse
Student Bob – if you think the “documents” on the cobocarpark website actually amount to anything evidentiary, worthwhile, coherent, or, even “new”, then you’re more deluded than TH is.
The States have asked the Proc to look into whether they can assume ownership of the land, which is a good sign.
Report abuse